Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The scope of the journal’s interest covers studies in the discipline of science of law.  The journal's profile also includes scientific publications in political science and public administration, if the research results presented relate to law or if the research is carried out from the perspective of this discipline. The Editorial Board accepts for publication original papers that present high cognitive value for the study of law and legal practice and may be of interest not only to the national but also to the international academic community.

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is a journal that publishes research results in particular in the fields of civil and commercial law, criminal law, administrative law and international law. The thematic scope of the journal includes papers on the theory and philosophy of law, political and legal doctrines, history of state and law, and Roman law.

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia publishes also commentaries on judicial decisions of national and European courts, appreciating the importance of dialogue between courts and scholars. In addition, the Editorial Board accepts reviews on Polish and foreign studies in the field of legal sciences (law) as well as information (reports) about the developments which take place within the legal scientific community both in Poland and abroad.

The mission of the journal is to disseminate nationally and internationally, on an open access basis, the results of research conducted by legal researchers and professionals, taking into account the importance of the impact of legal sciences (law) on the socio-economic environment.

 

Section Policies

Introduction

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Commentaries on judicial decisions

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reports

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Chronicle

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

References

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Tabula Gratulatoria

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

§ 1

1. The Editorial Board sends the following texts for review: scientific articles, commentaries on judicial decisions (glosses), reviews (review articles), and reports from scientific conferences.
2. Before sending for review, all texts submitted for publication are verified using anti-plagiarism software, the report from the verification being made available to reviewers by the Editorial Board, without revealing the identity of the Author.

§ 2

1. To assess each publication, at least two independent reviewers shall be appointed from outside the scientific unit affiliated by the author and from outside the Faculty of Law and Administration of the Maria Skłodowska University in Lublin
2. From manuscripts submitted in a foreign language only, at least one of the reviewers shall be a reviewer affiliated to a foreign academic institution.

§ 3

The author and reviewers shall not know the identities of one another (double-blind review process).

§ 4

Reviewers shall be appointed by the Editor-in-Chief in cooperation with the Managing Editor or the Head of the Editorial Board in consultation with the Editorial Board members. Where necessary, the relevant members of the Academic Advisory Board shall be consulted.

§ 5

1. The reviewer, when accepting the request to review a manuscript submitted to Studia Iuridica Lublinensia, shall make a declaration of the lack of conflict of interest.
2. A conflict of interest shall be deemed to be the relationship arising from a competitive activity, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships of the reviewer with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscript submitted.

§ 6

1. The review shall be made in writing and shall be concluded with a proposal to either publish the text or reject it.
2. The reviewer shall prepare the review in electronic form on his individual account on the www.studiaiuridica.umcs.pl website, and shall publish it in the journal's system. The journal's system does not allow the identification of both the author of the manuscript and the reviewer.
3. Within the journal's system, the reviewer is given individual access to the author's text file and the report on the verification of the submitted manuscript with anti-plagiarism software. The file with the author's text and anti-plagiarism software report provided to the reviewer does not allow identification of the author. 
4. The reviewer may choose the following recommendations concerning the peer-reviewed manuscript: Accept Submission; Revisions Required; Resubmit for Review; Decline Submission. 
5. In situations of controversy or in the event of inconsistent reviews, the admission to publication shall be decided by an editorial board, which may appoint an additional reviewer or reviewers.
6. Only manuscripts which have got two positive reviews shall be allowed for publication.

§ 7

1. Once the review is received, their content shall be communicated to the author without disclosing the identity of the reviewers.
2. The author of the text is obliged to respond substantively to all comments and conclusions posted in the review.
3. In the case of conditional reviews, the editorial board may allow the manuscript for publication provided that the author modifies the text as indicated by the reviewer and confirms this fact in the relevant statement, which should be submitted to the editor.

§ 8

1. The names of reviewers of individual articles shall not be disclosed.
2. The journal shall publish once a year a list of all cooperating reviewers.

 

Guidelines for Reviewers

DECISION TO PREPARE A REVIEW 

§ 1

1. [Expressing consent to the preparation of the review]

Before agreeing to prepare the review, the reviewer should consider whether the topic and subject matter of the text are consistent with his/her competence or research interests. The reviewer should refuse to prepare a review if he/she finds himself/herself as not having sufficient knowledge to draw up a reliable and substantive opinion.

2. [Timeliness]

The reviewer should refuse to prepare a review if he/she cannot spare enough time to meet the deadline for its preparation. The intended time to write a review of one manuscript is 4 weeks.  If the complexity of the subject matter or the number of texts sent for review requires a longer time to prepare the review, one should notify the editor and possibly agree upon the postponement of the deadline. If the reviewer finds it impossible to timely draw up the review is not possible, he/she should notify the editor without undue delay so as other potential reviewers can be contacted.

3. [Conflict of interest]

The reviewer should not undertake to review texts about which there is a reasonable suspicion of a conflict of interest resulting from competition, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships with any of the authors or institutions related to the submitted manuscript.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR MANUSCRIPTS TO BE REVIEWED 

§ 2 [Assessment criteria]

The reviewer should assess the manuscript taking into account: 1) the compliance of the reviewed text with the journal's profile; 2) the substantive side of the text and compliance of the article with the IMRAD structure (Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results and Discussion); 3) the correctness of the selection and application of research methods and their innovativeness; 4) the number and correctness of the selection of sources and literature, in particular bibliographic items on the lists of SCOPUS and Web of Science; 5) compliance of the abstract, keywords and references with the requirements of the journal; 6) the level of research tools; 7) the consistency and clarity of the text; 8) the language level.

§ 3 [Compliance of the reviewed text with the journal's profile]

1. The reviewer shall assess the manuscript in terms of compliance of the reviewed text with the journal's profile.
2. The reviewer finds whether the thematic scope of the reviewed text falls within the scientific discipline of law or the discipline of politics and administration. For manuscripts in the field of political science and administration, the presented research results should refer to or be the result of research conducted from the perspective of legal science (law).

§ 4 [The substantive side of the text]

1. The reviewer shall state whether the reviewed manuscript is an original scientific work that provides high cognitive value for legal science (law) or legal practice.
2. The reviewer shall assess whether the reviewed manuscript is sufficiently innovative and of interest for the national or international academic community.
3. The reviewer should specify, in particular, whether the text contains research results of international or national significance, and whether the obtained research results stand out from other results of research conducted within a given scientific discipline.  
4. The reviewer shall state whether the scientific article consists of separate parts, in accordance with the IMRAD structure: (Introduction, Materials &Methods, Results and Discussion).
5. The review should especially state:

1) whether the title is consistent with the research problems presented in the article;

2) whether the introduction defines: the aim and subject matter of the article; the essence of the problem; research hypotheses; the current state of research; innovativeness of the discussion;

3) whether the author described and correctly selected and applied research methods; whether the charts or tables contained in the article are legible and correctly presented;

4) whether the research process was correctly carried out by the author and whether the obtained results constitute elements of new knowledge;

5) whether in the summary and conclusions, the author presents theses and formulates answers to the questions posed in the introduction, points to elements of new knowledge, refers to the results of other scientists' research, determines the significance of the research in the field of legal sciences (law).

6. The reviewer of a commentary on a judicial decision (gloss) shall state whether the commentary to the court ruling is of a scientific nature and whether the reviewed text concerns a ruling that addresses controversial, ground-breaking and important problems for the shaping of judicial practice. The reviewer assesses whether the author of the commentary has correctly characterised the legal problem tackled in the commented ruling, properly analysed the reasoning of the adjudicating court and duly formulated the conclusion.
7. The reviewer of a review article should state whether the reviewed text relates to a publication significant for science or practice, and whether the author referred to the methodological correctness and substantive aspects of the reviewed item.
8. The reviewer of a conference report states whether the text specifies the subject and aim of the conference, presents theses or elementary content of the papers delivered and specifies the significance of the conference for science or practice.

§ 5 [Literature and sources]

The reviewer shall assess whether the author of the manuscript has appropriately taken into account in his research the relevant sources and literature on the subject and whether he has used bibliographic items listed on SCOPUS and Web of Science.

§ 6 [Abstract and keywords]

1. The reviewer shall state whether the abstract of the manuscript being reviewed complies with the requirements set out in the guidelines for authors, in particular:

1) whether the abstract of the scientific article specifies: the nature of the article; the subject of research; the main theses; the aim of research; the originality of research results; the scope of research, the cognitive value for science or practice;

2) whether the abstract of the commentary of a judicial decision (gloss) specifies: the nature of the commentary; the research problem with a synthetic presentation of facts and law; the main theses; originality of the results; the cognitive value for science or practice;

3) whether the abstract of the review (review article) specifies: the subject matter and significance of the peer-reviewed work for science or practice; the assessment of the methodological correctness of the reviewed item; the assessment of the logical correctness of the reviewed item; the assessment of the originality of the reviewed item; the reviewer's conclusions;

4) whether the abstract of the conference report specifies: the topic, date and place of the conference; the subject matter and aim of the conference; the significance of the conference for science or practice.

2. The reviewer shall assess the correctness of the keywords selected by the author.

§ 7 [Language and technical standards of the text]

1. The reviewer shall assess the linguistic level, stylistic values, consistency and clarity of the text.
2. The reviewer shall state whether the manuscript is in line with the rules for text formatting, footnotes and references set out in the guidelines for authors.

ETHICS RULES

§ 8 [Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication]

1. If the reviewer suspects that the reviewed text is a redundant (duplicate) publication, he/she shall notify the editor.
2. A redundant (duplicate) publication is to be understood as a manuscript in which the author reproduces his/her own previously published papers in the form of a literal or partial repetition of his/her own publications or the submission of a text published in another language.
3. The reviewer should make available to the editor the relevant evidence which forms the basis for the suspicion that the publication is redundant (duplicate).
4. Where the reviewer reports a suspected redundant (duplicate) publication, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

§ 9 [Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript]

1. The reviewer should inform the editor of the suspected plagiarism.
2. Plagiarism is defined as either the acquisition of someone else's work in whole or in large part in its unchanged form or with minor modifications (explicit plagiarism), or the presentation of someone else's work in a modified form, while retaining the creative and individual characteristics given to it by the actual author (hidden plagiarism).
3. The reviewer should make available to the editor the relevant evidence which forms the basis for the suspicion of plagiarism.
4. Where the reviewer reports a suspected plagiarism, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

§ 10 [Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript]

1. If the reviewer suspects that the data used in the submitted manuscript have been fabricated, should notify the editor of this.
2. Data fabrication occurs where the author of the manuscript presents the results of research work which has not taken place or changes the results of the research carried out in an arbitrary or unjustified manner.
3. The reviewer should present to the editor appropriate evidence, which is the basis for suspicion that the data used in the submitted manuscript has been fabricated.
4. Where the reviewer reports suspected fabrication of data, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

§ 11 [Suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship]

1. If the reviewer suspects that a manuscript was written by someone who was not on the list of authors or who was not properly included in the acknowledgements or lists authors that should not be credited (guest or gift authors), he/she should inform the editor.
2. The evaluation of ghost, guest or gift authorship shall be performed pursuant to relevant rules defined by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts):

1) A ghost author is someone who is omitted from an authorship list despite qualifying for authorship.

2) A guest or gift author is someone who is listed as an author despite not qualifying for authorship. Guests are people brought in to make the list look more impressive (despite having little or no involvement with the research or publication). Gift authorship involves including colleagues on papers in return for being listed on theirs.

3. The reviewer should make available to the editor any relevant evidence that is a basis for the suspicion of ghost, guest or gift authorship.
4. Where the reviewer reports the suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

§ 12 [Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript]

1. If the reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in the submitted manuscript, he/she shall notify the editor.
2. A conflict of interest may arise from a competitive activity, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscript submitted.
3. Where the reviewer reports the suspicion of an undisclosed conflict of interest in the submitted manuscript, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

§ 13 [Ethical problem with a submitted manuscript]

1. If the reviewer suspects a specific ethical problem with a submitted manuscript, he/she shall notify the editor.
2. Where the reviewer reports that there is an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

§ 14 [Confidentiality]

1. Texts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They may not be disclosed or discussed with other persons, unless the reviewer has obtained the editor's consent.
2. Non-published materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript may not be used in the reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author.
3. Where there is a suspicion that the reviewer misappropriated the author's ideas or data, the editor shall carry out a proceeding compliant with the relevant rules set out by COPE (The Committee on Publication Ethics) referred to at https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts.

§ 15 [Objectivity of a review]

1. Reviews should be conducted objectively.
2. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. 

 

 

Publication Frequency

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is issued four times a year:

No 1 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of March

No 2 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of June

No 3 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of September

No 4 - scheduled date of issue: before the end of December

The Editorial Board may decide to release an additional special issue beyond the publishing schedule or a thematic issue as part of the regular publishing schedule.

 

Open Access Policy

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI (Budapest Open Access Initiative) definition of open access.

 

Reviewers list

2014

  • Adam Bosiacki, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Polska
  • Jerzy Jaskiernia, Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach, Polska
  • Mirosław Karpiuk, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Polska
  • Artur Łuszczyński, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, Polska
  • Maciej Marszał, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Lech K. Paprzycki, Prezes Sądu Najwyższego, Polska
  • Stanisław Pikulski, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Polska
  • Bartosz Rakoczy, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu, Polska
  • Ryszard A. Stefański, Uczelnia Łazarskiego, Polska
  • Elżbieta Tomkiewicz, Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Polska

2015

  • Adam Bosiacki, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Polska
  • Krzysztof Eckhardt, WSPiA Rzeszowska Szkoła Wyższa, Polska
  • Mirosław Karpiuk, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Polska
  • Krzysztof Wiak, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska
  • John McClellan Marshall, The Honorable Senior Judge, United States

2016

  • Jerzy Bieluk, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, Polska
  • Paweł Borszowski, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Małgorzata Czuryk, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Polska
  • Maciej Chmieliński, Uniwersytet Łódzki, Polska
  • Paweł Chmielnicki, Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach, Polska
  • Paweł Daniluk, Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Polska
  • Elżbieta Dynia, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, Polska
  • Krzysztof Eckhardt, WSPiA Rzeszowska Szkoła Wyższa, Polska
  • Adam Górski, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, Polska
  • Eugeniusz Hull, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Polska
  • Mirosław Karpiuk, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Polska
  • Hanna Kuczyńska, Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Polska
  • Piotr Niczyporuk, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, Polska
  • Piotr Marszałek, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Jadwiga Potrzeszcz, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska
  • Magdalena Pyter, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska
  • Sławomir Tkacz, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach, Polska

2017

  • Marek Andrzejewski, Uniwersytet Szczeciński, Polska
  • Paweł Borszowski, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Paweł Daniluk, Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Polska
  • Mirosław Karpiuk, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Polska
  • Dorota Łobos-Kotowska, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach, Polska
  • Piotr Marszałek, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Monika Michalska-Marciniak, Uniwersytet Łódzki, Polska
  • Hanna Paluszkiewicz, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Polska
  • Jadwiga Potrzeszcz, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska
  • Wojciech Staszewski, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska
  • Małgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderek, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska

2018

  • Jerzy Bieluk, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, Polska
  • Małgorzata Czuryk, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Polska
  • Paweł Daniluk, Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Polska
  • Przemysław Dąbrowski, Akademia Pomorska w Słupsku, Polska
  • Katarzyna Dunaj, Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Informatyki i Przedsiębiorczości w Łomży, Polska
  • Adam Górski, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie, Polska
  • Mirosław Karpiuk, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Polska
  • Artur Łuszczyński, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, Polska
  • Maciej Marszał, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Andrzej Pieczywok, Uniwersytet Kazimierza Wielkiego w Bydgoszczy, Polska
  • Jadwiga Potrzeszcz, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska
  • Mirosław Sitarz, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska
  • Małgorzata Wąsek-Wiaderek, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska
  • Krzysztof Wiak, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska

2019

  • Ryszard Balicki, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Noémia Bessa Vilela, Portucalense University, Portugal
  • Jerzy Bieluk, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, Polska
  • Paweł Borszowski, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Katarzyna Chałubińska-Jentkiewicz, Akademia Sztuki Wojennej, Polska
  • Waldemar Chorążyczewski, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu, Polska
  • Paweł Czubik, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Krakowie, Polska
  • Małgorzata Czuryk, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Polska
  • Joanna Długosz, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, Polska
  • Paweł Daniluk, Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Polska
  • Michał Domagała, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska
  • Marzena Dyjakowska, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska
  • János Fazekas, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
  • Ewa Gajda, Uniwersytet Szczeciński, Polska
  • István Hoffman, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
  • Dariusz Jagiełło, SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny, Polska
  • Edvardas Juchnevicius, Uniwersytet Gdański, Polska
  • Beata Kozłowska-Chyła, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Polska
  • Marek Leśniak, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Dorota Łobos-Kotowska, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach, Polska
  • Mirosław Karpiuk, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie, Polska
  • Monika Król, Uniwersytet Łódzki, Polska
  • Jan Kulesza, Uniwersytet Łódzki, Polska
  • Adam Lityński, Profesor emerytowany, Polska
  • Norbert Malec, Uniwersytet Przyrodniczo-Humanistyczny w Siedlcach, Polska
  • Maciej Marszał, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Adam Niewiadomski, Uniwersytet Warszawski, Polska
  • Aleksander Oleszko, Profesor emerytowany, Polska
  • Andrzej Pieczywok, Uniwersytet Kazimierza Wielkiego w Bydgoszczy, Polska
  • Piotr Pinior, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach, Polska
  • Michal Radvan, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
  • Mirosław Sadowski, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Andrzej Sakowicz, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, Polska
  • Tomasz Scheffler, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Zofia Sienkiewicz, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Bogusław Sołtys, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Polska
  • Piotr Sowiński, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski, Polska
  • Anna Stawarska-Rippel, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach, Polska
  • Zbigniew Suchecki, Pontificia Facoltà Teologica San Bonaventura, Italy
  • Magdalena Tulibacka, Emory University School of Law, United States
  • Grzegorz Tylec, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II, Polska

2020

  • Marek Andrzejewski, Uniwersytet Szczeciński / University of Szczecin, Poland
  • Iwona Barwicka-Tylek, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie/ Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland
  • Jerzy Bieluk, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku / University of Bialystok, Poland
  • Łukasz Błaszczak, Uniwersytet Wrocławski / University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Paweł Borszowski, Uniwersytet Wrocławski / University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Maria Bosak-Sójka, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski / University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • Katarzyna Celińska-Grzegorczyk, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu / Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
  • Katarzyna Chałubińska-Jentkiewicz (Akademia Sztuki Wojennej / The War Studies University, Poland
  • Paweł Czechowski, Uniwersytet Warszawski / Warsaw University, Poland
  • Małgorzata Czuryk, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie / University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
  • Paweł Daniluk, Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk / The Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland
  • Przemysław Dąbrowski, Akademia Pomorska w Słupsku / Pomeranian University in Słupsk, Poland
  • Joanna Długosz, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu / Adam Mickiewicz University, Poland
  • Marek Dobrowolski, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II / The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Michał Domagała, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II / The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Marzena Dyjakowska, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II / The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • János Fazekas, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
  • Janusz Gajda, Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach / Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce, Poland
  • Ewa Gmurzyńska, Uniwersytet Warszawski / University of Warsaw, Poland
  • Olgierd Górecki, Uniwersytet Łódzki / University of Lodz, Poland
  • Piotr Herbowski, SWPS Uniwersytet Humanistycznospołeczny / SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Poland
  • István Hoffman, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary 
  • Bartha Ildikó, University of Debrecen, Hungary
  • Anna Kalisz, Uniwersytet Pedagogiczny im. Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie / Pedagogical University of Krakow, Poland
  • Aleksander Kappes, Uniwersytet Łódzki / University of Lodz, Poland
  • Mirosław Karpiuk, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie / University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
  • Karol Karski, Uniwersytet Warszawski / University of Warsaw, Poland
  • Jerzy Kasprzak, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie / University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
  • Tadeusz Kiełkowski, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie / Jagiellonian University in Kraków
  • Hanna Kuczyńska, Instytut Nauk Prawnych Polskiej Akademii Nauk / The Institute of Law Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland
  • Jan Kulesza, Uniwersytet Łódzki / University of Lodz, Poland
  • Adam Lityński, Profesor emerytowany / Professor Emeritus, Poland
  • Marek Leśniak, Uniwersytet Wrocławski / University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Justyna Łacny, Politechnika Warszawska / Warsaw University of Technology, Poland
  • Kinga Machowicz, Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II / The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
  • Paweł Majka, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski / University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • Agnieszka Malarewicz-Jakubów, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku / University of Bialystok, Poland
  • Grzegorz Maroń, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski / University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • Regina Garcimartín Montero, University of Zaragoza, Spain
  • Jarosław Moszczyński, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie / University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland
  • Piotr Niczyporuk, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku / University of Bialystok, Poland
  • Marcin Niemczyk, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski / University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • Marko Novak, New University, Slovenia
  • Aleksander Oleszko, sędzia sądu okręgowego w stanie spoczynku / retired judge of the district court
  • Maciej Perkowski, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku / University of Bialystok, Poland
  • Andrzej Pieczywok, Uniwersytet Kazimierza Wielkiego w Bydgoszczy / Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Katarzyna Popik-Konarzewska, Wyższa Szkoła Ekonomii i Innowacji w Lublinie / University of Economics and Innovation in Lublin
  • Michal Radvan, Masaryk University, Czech Republic
  • Krisztina Rozsnyai, Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
  • Trinidad Vázquez Ruano, University of Jaén, Spain
  • Olga Sitarz, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach / University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
  • Mirosław Sadowski, Uniwersytet Wrocławski / University of Wrocław, Poland
  • Andrzej Sakowicz, Uniwersytet w Białymstoku / University of Bialystok, Poland
  • Joanna Siekiera, University of Bergen, Norway
  • Tomasz Siemiątkowski, Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie / SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Poland
  • Olga Sitarz, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach / University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland
  • Joanna Sitko, Politechnika Lubelska / Lublin University of Technology, Poland
  • Bogumił Szmulik, Uniwersytet Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego w Warszawie / The Cardinal Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Poland
  • Renata Świrgoń-Skok, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski / University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • Robert Talaga, Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Poznaniu / Voivodeship Administrative Court in Poznań
  • Tadeusz Tomaszewski, Uniwersytet Warszawski / University of Warsaw, Poland
  • Elżbieta Ura, Uniwersytet Rzeszowski / University of Rzeszów, Poland
  • Jacek Wantoch-Rekowski, Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu / Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland 
  • Mariusz Wieczorek, Uniwersytet Technologiczno-Humanistyczny im. Kazimierza Pułaskiego w Radomiu / Kazimierz Pulaski University of Technology and Humanities in Radom, Poland
  • Tadeusz Zembrzuski, Uniwersytet Warszawski / Warsaw University, Poland
  • Adam Zienkiewicz, Uniwersytet Warmińsko-Mazurski w Olsztynie / University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland

 

Indexing

Scopus, BazHum; BazEkon; Index Copernicus International (ICI Journals Master List); Google Scholar, POL-index, The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (CEJSH); Central and Eastern European Online Library (CEEOL); The European Reference Index for the Humanities and the Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS); WorldCat

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

§ 1

Studia Iuridica Lublinensia is committed to upholding the ethical standards of scientific publications and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices.

§ 2

For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior.

§ 3

The ethics statements for Studia Iuridica Lublinensia are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the guidelines of Publishing Ethics of the ELSEVIER.

 

EDITOR RESPONSIBILITIES

Accountability

§ 4

  1. The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles, glosses, reviews and reports from scientific conferences submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal.
  2. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding issues such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  3. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions.
  4. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Peer review

§ 5

  1. The editor shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely.
  2. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions.
  3. The editor shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practice in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

 

Fairness

§ 6

  1. The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
  2. The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

 

Confidentiality

§ 7

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

§ 8

  1. The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Studia Iuridica Lublinensia.
  2. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
  3. The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
  4. The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

 

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

§ 9

  1. Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.
  2. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct.
  3. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

 

Journal metrics

§ 10

The editor must not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal’s articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons and authors should not be required to include references to the editor’s own articles or products and services in which the editor has an interest.

 

REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES

 

Contribution to editorial decisions

§ 11

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

 

Promptness

§ 12

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

 

Confidentiality

§ 13

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

 

Standards of objectivity

§ 14

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

 

Acknowledgement of sources

§ 15

  1. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  2. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

 

Disclosure and conflict of interest

§ 16

  1. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
  2. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

 

AUTHOR RESPONSIBILITIES 

 

Reporting standards

§ 17

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

 

Data Access and Retention

§ 18

  1. Authors may be asked to provide the research data supporting their paper for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal. 
  2. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication.

 

Originality and Plagiarism

§ 19

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

 

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

§ 20

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

 

Acknowledgement of sources

§ 21

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

 

Authorship of a manuscript

§ 22

  1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
  2. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
  3. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.
  4. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
  5. Authors take collective responsibility for the work. Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

§ 23

  1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript.
  2. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

 

Fundamental errors in published works

§ 24

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

 

PUBLISHER’S CONFIRMATION

§ 25

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

 

Standards of proceeding in the event of suspected infringement of ethical rules

If any manifestation of scientific unreliability is detected, the Editorial Board shall apply the following rules of procedure, based on guidelines in the form of diagrams (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Flowcharts) developed by the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and made available under licence CC BY-NC-ND 3.0.

§ 1

[Rules of procedure in the case of a suspected redundant (duplicate) publication]

A redundant (duplicate) publication is to be understood as a manuscript in which the author reproduces his/her own previously published papers in the form of a literal or partial repetition of his/her own publications or the submission of a text published in another language.

Proceeding in the case of a suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in the submitted and published manuscript

§ 2

[Rules of procedure in the cases of suspected plagiarism]

Plagiarism is defined as either the acquisition of someone else's work in whole or in large part in its unchanged form or with minor modifications (explicit plagiarism), or the presentation of someone else's work in a modified form, while retaining the creative and individual characteristics given to it by the actual author (hidden plagiarism).

Proceeding in the case of suspected plagiarism in a submitted and published manuscript

§ 3

[Rules of procedure in the case of suspected fabrication of data]

Data fabrication occurs where the author of the manuscript presents the results of research work which has not taken place or changes the results of the research carried out in an arbitrary or unjustified manner.

Proceeding in the case of suspected fabrication of data in a submitted and published manuscript

§ 4

[Rules of procedure in the case of an application to modify the list of authors]

Proceeding in the case where a correspondence author requests that another author be added or deleted before and after publication of a manuscript

§ 5

[Rules of procedure in the case of suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship]

1) A ghost author is someone who is omitted from an authorship list despite qualifying for authorship.

2) A guest author is someone who is listed as an author despite not qualifying for authorship. Guests are people brought in to make the list look more impressive (despite having little or no involvement with the research or publication).

3) A gift author is someone who is listed as an author despite not qualifying for authorship. Gift authorship involves including colleagues on papers in return for being listed on theirs.

Proceeding in the case of suspected ghost, guest or gift authorship

§ 6

[Rules of conduct in the event of a suspected undisclosed conflict of interest]

A conflict of interest shall be deemed to be the relationship arising from a competitive activity, cooperation or other personal, financial or professional relationships of the reviewer with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscript submitted.

Proceeding in the case where the reviewer suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript and where the reader suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article

§ 7

[Rules of conduct in the case of a suspected ethical problem with a submitted manuscript]

Proceeding where the editor suspects that there is an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript

§ 8

[Rules of procedure in the case of a suspected misappropriation of author's ideas or data by the reviewer]

Proceeding in the event of a suspicion that the reviewer has misappropriated the author's ideas or data

§ 9

[Rules for responding to whistleblowers]

Rules for responding to whistleblowers who have raised their concerns directly or via social media